APHC010157032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8674/2025 Between: Sirigirisetti Venkata Ramana and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8674/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 to declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in disposing off petitioners’ Appeal Petition vide bearing R.O.R.No.52 of 2023 as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to Andhra Pradesh Pattadar Passbooks Act and Rules thereunder and contrary to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to direct respondent No.3 to dispose of the same in accordance with law and pass such other order.” 2. Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide R.O.R.No.52 of 2023. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue not refused and agreed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide R.O.R.No.52 of 2023, if any pending with the respondents. 4. In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, this Court need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is 3 conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the appeal, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide R.O.R.No.52 of 2023, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 04.04.2025 TTPPSS 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 4 161 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8674 of 2025 04.04.2025 TTPPSS